Friends & Colleagues
The unprovoked American war on Venezuela heightens the dilemma for Russia, and China as well, in addressing the erratic, reckless
conduct of Washington's psychotic leadership. This was a topic considered in the commentary distributed last week on
The Agony of Defeat. Some additional thoughts are prompted by the Venezuelan affair. This material is noted below, placed in section '4' which is reproduced. The fresh paragraphs are marked in
BOLD ITALICS. They appear as RED in the revised full text
that is attached.
Cheers
Michael Brenner
mbren@pitt.edu
" 4. Vladimir Putin, and his associates, tacitly feed this delusion by taking a calculatingly temperate tack in reaction
to this non-starter of a “peace” plan despite Washington’s quixotic and bumbling machinations. Whether they do so to satisfy partners (China, India, Turkey, Brazil) who for their own national reasons want to see an end to the war and whose
cooperation is valued OR due to Putin’s long-standing and enduring hopes of engaging constructively with the United States, their non-confrontational approach carries the risk of entrenching the Americans’ fantastical view of the world.
So that when crunch time comes, and humiliating defeat is at the door, they might revert to type and impulse by resorting to the violent, escalatory option.
Far-fetched? For some time, the Kremlin may well have been emboldening Washington to consider escalation by passively accepting that hundreds of American military personnel are firing American HIMARS and ACATM missiles into Russia proper, that American AWACS
and satellites guide Ukrainian attacks against strategic radar sites, that analogous technical assistance allows for assault on Russia’s “shadow” oil fleet, that the Pentagon draws up the battle plans for the Ukrainian army and orchestrated the ill-starred
2023 offensive, that the CIA implanted itself along the country’s border to provide Kiev Intelligence and to facilitate para-military operations. This passive behavior has led many within Washington policy circles to believe that Putin is lacking in ruthlessness
– whatever his other strengths. That impression has been reinforced by Russian restraint on Syria, Iran, Palestine and Venezuela when the Kremlin was confronted by audacious, in-your-face American actions. The conclusion that Putin is not a ruthless leader
is probably correct – although incorrect in the corollary assumption that he would allow himself to be bullied into major concessions when push comes to shove over Ukraine. Putin’s reading of the Trump presidency is that the man’s mercurial nature and unpredictability
potentially opens the possibility for some kind of meeting of the minds which was foreclosed by more conventional American leaders like Biden. A stable Russo-American
modus vivendi, in turn, is the sine qua non for a longer-term reconciliation of Russia within the wider European system.
Another consideration. In all likelihood, there lurks in the back of Putin’s mind the dread fear that an unhinged Trump, roiling in the coils of his twisted psyche, could do something truly insane that endangers all. Keeping company with him – however tenuous
– is seen as mitigating that risk by ensuring that Trump didn’t disconnect from reality totally."
There is a related issue associated with Donald Trump’s peculiar form of malignant narcissism. Someone of his make-up spends his entire life driven by two obsessive needs. One is to protect the sacred inner self at the core of his being from anything
or anybody that might threaten to expose its vulnerability and fragility – to the world, and especially to himself. The other is a compulsion to confirm his exalted sense of self and superiority through audacious acts. An individual success in the latter emboldens
him to play tough in other dealings, i.e. it is interpreted as confirmation of his greatness and power, a reward for his audacity.
What is the practical implication? Moscow, and Beijing as well, find themselves in the awkward position of having an indirect stake in whether Trump’s bouts of aggression against third parties succeed, yet hesitate to confront the United States there
out of concern for complicating their already fraught dealings with Washington. Three examples stand out: Venezuela, full support for the Greater Israel project in Syria and Lebanon, and – most egregiously - the UN mandate for the Americans to take control
of Gaza. This last is most radical for its violation of the world body’s foundational principles, for its contradiction of the recognition given Palestine as a political entity, and for its final abandonment of the Palestinian people to their genocidal fate.
Russia could have vetoed the measure in the UNSC. It chose not to do so for a variety of short-term, expedient reasons, e.g. to avoid offending the Arab states who backed it. They might well pay a price for that decision down the road in their encounters with
the megalomaniacal Trump and American political elites who have not resigned themselves to a less dominant place in world affairs. Emotionally, every new notch in their belt inflates their ‘high’ – thereby, tilting their behavior further toward the irrational
rather than the realistic - across the board.
"What Putin fails to perceive is that behind the showmanship and disconnects,
Trump’s outlook on the world – especially the fixed belief in the country’s superiority and privileged exceptionalism - at its core closely resembles that of the Washington consensus. Scratch beneath the surface and we experience deja vu all over again – decked
out in novel costume.
Looking
beyond Ukraine, bear in mind that this government, in less than a year, has established a stunning record for bellicosity: launching a massive air assault against Iran with no legal or security justification (an aggression concealed by a deceptive veil of
fictitious peace talks); lending its military might and diplomatic muscle to Israel’s attacks on Lebanon and Syria followed by partial territorial seizures; participating in the Palestinian genocide; declaring war on Venezuela behind a smokescreen of transparent
lies to hide the actual objective of taking control of the country’s petroleum resources; encouraging the newly minted Japanese government of ultra-nationalist Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi to make the reckless declaration that Japan had a strategic national
interest in Taiwan’s independence and, if necessary, defense; imposing or threatening coercive economic sanctions on an array of countries suspected of disobedience to Washington"